Pankaj Sood v. State (NCT of Delhi)

1. Crl.A.No.869/2015 has been filed by the appellant Pankaj Sood for setting aside the judgment dated 30.05.2015 and order on sentence dated 06.06.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and imposed a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo six months simple imprisonment.

2. Crl.A.No.896/2015 has been filed by the victim Sunny Jaglan seeking enhancement of the sentence which has been awarded to respondent no.2(appellant in Crl.A.869/2015).

3. With the consent of the parties, both the appeals are set down for final hearing and disposal. CRL.A. 896/2015

4. Counsel for the parties submit that the parties have entered into an amicable settlement.

5. Counsel for the victim Sunny Jaglan (appellant in Crl.A.896/2015) submits that he has instructions not to press this appeal, subject to the condition that the appellant Pankaj Sood through his parokar gives an undertaking to this Court that he will withdraw C.C. No. 198/1/2010, Police Station Hauz Khas pending before Saket Courts, Delhi.

6. Counsel for the appellant Pankaj Sood in Crl.A.869/2015 submits that he had appeared before the Saket Courts where the matter was listed but the concerned Judge was on leave. A statement with respect to C.C. No. 198/1/2010, Police Station Hauz Khas was made but no formal order could be passed as the Judge was on leave. Counsel and the parokar undertake to withdraw the aforesaid C.C. No. 198/1/2010.

7. Consequently, Crl.A.No.896/2015 stands dismissed as withdrawn. CRL.A. 869/2015

8. Counsel for the parties submits that a settlement has been arrived at between the appellant and the victim. Counsel for the appellant submit that he has instructions not to press the appeal on merits and in view of the settlement entered into between the parties, the order on sentence of the Trial Court should be modified to the period already undergone.

9. Before the submissions of the parties can be considered, we deem it appropriate to notice the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court, which is reproduced as under:

10. The facts of the case as these unfold are that on 16.10.2010, the injured was travelling with his friend. Due to heavy traffic jam, the car of the appellant and the victim touched which led to a scuffle. The complainant received certain injuries. The victim was taken to the hospital by the appellant herein. Initially, a case under Section 308 IPC was registered, however, subsequently a charge under Section 307 IPC was framed. Nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Two witnesses were produced by the defence.

11. In addition to the ground that parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, counsel for the appellant has pleaded that the order on sentence should be modified to the period already undergone on the ground that the scuffle took place at the heat of the moment and the appellant had no intention to cause injuries to the victim. He further submits that although the victim was hospitalised, but he was discharged on the same date. Counsel has strongly urged before this Court that the conduct of the appellant be also considered as realising his mistake, the appellant brought the victim to the hospital for medical aid and now the parties have amicably resolved the matter.